What seems to be something that should have arrived months and months ago is finally here for Nintendo Wii owners – Hulu Plus is now available on the Wii. On February 16th, the service was added to the Wii Shop for download with the standard monthly subscription fee to Hulu for $7.99.

As the press release states, Wii owners will now have the ability to watch Hulu Plus shows like Vampire Diaries, The Office, Modern Family, Community and more through their console. Pete Distad, VP of Marketing and Distribution at Hulu said:  “We want to be everywhere, on every screen where people want to watch their favorite shows and discover new ones on their own schedule. Wii is not only one of the most important entertainment devices in the living room, but one of the most heavily anticipated and requested platforms by users and subscribers. Teaming up with Nintendo gives millions of households across the U.S. an immediate way to access some of their favorite current season shows on-demand in their living room through Hulu Plus.”

The above comment is interesting to me, because honestly I wasn’t waiting around for Wii to add the service.  I added all my streaming services to my Playstation 3 a long time ago.  My question is to everyone out there: If you really wanted Hulu Plus, wouldn’t you already have it through another device by now? It makes me wonder how many people out there ONLY own a Wii and therefore depend on it to serve as a device for Netflix, Hulu, etc. to be viewable on their TV. Sorry to say this to you, Hulu, but this is whole deal is really late in the game (especially considering Nintendo has announced that their new console is already on deck). So, Hulu and Nintendo, what the heck took you so long?

Hulu Plus will also be coming to Nintendo 3DS later this year, which makes me think a deal is probably already in the works for the service to be available on Nintendo’s next system. (Well, if they’re smart about it!)

Paramount and Michael Bay’s production company, Platinum Dunes, are slowly but seemingly surely moving forward with rebooting the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle live-action movie franchise, and they may have found their director.

Variety is reporting that director Jonathan Liebsman (The Wrath of the Titans, Battle Los Angeles) is currently in negotiations to direct the TMNT reboot with a script written by the guys behind Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Josh Appelbaum and Andre Nemec. No plot points are known at this early stage, but being that it’s a reboot I’m sure we will see a lot of what we already know about the turtles “rehashed” to start off with (assuming this will be more than one movie, which I’d be surprised if it wasn’t). There is also speculation that the turtles won’t be portrayed with the Henson Workshop versions those of us old enough to remember hold so dear, but instead by motion-capture CGI.

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were a huge part of my child hood, and that first movie was just fantastic (and no, this is not nostalgia clouding my mind, I just watched it for the 100th time a few months ago). Two things I am hoping for with this movie: First is that someone involved with this movie has some respect and passion for the Turtles, wanting to give the fans the Turtles we know and love, while bringing on a new generation of fans. Second, hopefully there is some reconsideration to use the Henson Turtles as opposed to mo-cap CGI. Sure, they could use some updating, and I’d even be okay with CG faces, a la Where the Wild Things Are. Too often today film makers default to CGI rather than the practical effects.

Enough of my fanboy rant and concerns. In either case I’m excited to see what comes of a new live-action TMNT movie – whenever that happens. To tide us all over until Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo and Raphael are all back on the big screen, here are some promotional images from Toy Ark (follow link for tons more photos) from the new TMNT cartoon that will be hitting Nickelodeon later this year! Speaking of which, have you seen the new toys?!

Recently Dan Aykroyd sat down to talk with Empire about some of the Ghostbusters 3 rumors. It seems as though he is still very passionate about getting this film made. Whether or not that’s a good thing is still up for debate.

A little while back, Bill Murray was rumored to have shredded his copy of the Ghostbusters 3 script stating, “No-one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts”. While I don’t agree, I see his point. Aykroyd responded to this by saying, “Bill Murray is not capable of such behaviour. This is simply something that would not be in his nature. We have a deep, private personal relationship that transcends business. We communicate frequently and his position on the involvement in Ghostbusters 3 has been made clear and I respect that. But Bill has too much positive estimation of my writing skills to shred the work.”

Interesting point, and I do think Dan Aykroyd is probably correct. I don’t see Bill Murray doing that to a script a good friend of his wrote. And it seems as though Dan Aykroyd has come to terms with Bill Murray not wanting to be in Ghostbusters 3.

Empire states that Aykroyd hinted around recasting Peter Venkman, but not with an actual quote from Dan. Which makes me wonder how much of this is truth and how much of this is Empire putting 2 and 2 together to make 5. I guess only time will tell. What do you think about Sony recasting Peter instead of writing him out of the script?

Well, this exists.

I’m actually pretty excited to see this. I’ve heard nothing but great things about the book, though the tone of the movie borders on ridiculous. I mean, I know the whole conceit is ridiculous, but this just seems a little bit beyond the pale.

I’ll be there to see it opening day, though.

I’m very much looking forward to seeing it one way or the other.

Though I do think that Johnny Cash track is played out for the movies. Let’s move onto something else, shall we?

I’ve never made any secret about my devotion to Shakespeare in Love. I think it quite rightly won the Academy Award for Best Picture, beating out Saving Private and Life as Beautiful. The only film I would have been okay with beating it would have been Terrence Malick’s beautiful Thin Red Line.

But because it came out of nowhere and beat out a popular favorite in Saving Private Ryan, people seem to discount it for some reason.

You shouldn’t. You should check it out once more.

Everything about this film is a 10. The script is a finely tuned swiss watch, carefully taking you from scene to scene, increasing the stakes with every moment and offering a wonderful and heartbreaking and romantic story. For Shakespeare geeks, the way it weaves in nods to Shakespeares work (particularly Romeo and Juliet and Twelfth Night) is a master stroke. The acting is second to none. This, not Iron Man, is the film that made me fall in love with Gwyneth Paltrow. Joseph Fiennes (little brother to Ralph) is absolutely brilliant as young Will Shakespeare, and the supporting performers (including Tom Wilkinson, Geoffrey Rush, Judi Dench, and Ben Affleck, among others) are stunningly perfect… The music is wonderful, the cinematography brings you to the place. Above all, it’s funny and warm.

It’s a cinema geek’s dream.

With the release of the new Blu-ray clocking in at less than $10, I’m hoping that some of you will revisit this film and give it another chance. Let go of all the baggage from it beating Saving Private Ryan. And it looks and sounds fantastic in this format.

If you’re a cinema geek, I really think you’ll find a lot to love in revisiting this film. It easily rates on my top 10 list (not counting the 10 movies that comprise the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises). It’s a movie I revisit often and will continue to do so. It’s timeless, getting better with age and repeated viewings.

And while you’re revisiting it, you simply HAVE to (re)watch George Lucas in Love. It marries the creation of Star Wars to the plot of Shakespeare in Love. It’s one of the best fan films out there.

News came down in January that Gary Friedrich lost his long standing suit with Marvel comics over the ownership of his now iconic character Ghost Rider. But now further insult to injury is added with the released news of that beyond Marvel decidedly owning the rights to the famous flame covered skull headed hero – Gary also owes THEM $17,000 . Money that he made promoting himself as the creator of Ghost Rider. Similar suites have come to “The house of Idea’s” in recent years, with ultimately the same result of the court siding with Maarvel. But with the upcoming release of the second Ghost Rider film this Friday, the 17th; the recent news has left a decidedly bad taste in the mouth of comic fandom.

The idea that a multi mullion dollar company like Marvel that is backed by an even larger and more powerful multibillion dollar corporation like Disney would win such a lawsuit is no real surprise. Obviously they can afford a larger legal team and wield more resources. But that they ALSO would then demand money from a guy that is more or less destitute has a deeply unsavory air to it. Especially given the less than amazing employment market for humans in general, let alone for creative types. The same provision that demands the money also states that Friedrich can never promote himself as the creator of Ghost Rider again at conventions and signings per se, which for the 60 some odd year old writer is an important income source.

When I first read the news – my instant reaction was that someone needed to put something together. Personally – I don’t know much about creating charities or funds – or getting them started with online resources like Kick Starter . I contacted the Lower New York State District Court (where the decision was filed) to inquire how payments of suits of this nature were handled. They directed me to Marvel stating that these things are handled between parties of the suit. Attempts I made to contact Marvel directly on whether they would accept payments made to them in Gary’s honor failed to generate a response. It also seemed pretty obvious that Gary would appeal (which he confirmed on hisfacebook page ). So why send money to Marvel if there was ANY hope of the court telling them to stuff it? How could fans help Gary? Perhaps just maybe ALSO send a message to Marvel that even though he isn’t allowed to promote himself as the creator of Ghost Rider – WE know he is the creator of Ghost Rider. WE – the comic nerd public stand behind the creators, not the bloodless legal persons that control the rights to the ideas the creators hatched.

But lo and behold; I wasn’t the only one thinking this. By last Friday, Steve Niles over at his blog got a charity going to help Gary. I think a just base amount for a donation would be however much you as a fan are/ were planning on spending to see the new Ghost Rider flick. Just the ticket? The ticket, candy, soda, and popcorn? Your call. But Now – it isn’t just Gary. Quick on the heels for the outcry for people to help Mr. Friedrich – is a new change.org petition to Marvel Entertainment to give credit and royalties to Jack Kirby and his family. It appears that a bit of an uprising is happening at the grass roots level.

Just incase you didn’t notice the link IN the article;

Here are the link to Steve Niles page and the Friedrich charity.

And here is the link to the chang.org petition to marvel on behalf of Jack Kirby.

As of the time of writing this there has been no public comment from the Movie’s producers, director, or star Nicolas Cage; Himself a long time die hard Ghost Rider fan (his ghost rider tattoo had to be covered cosmetically for his role in in the first ghost rider film humorously enough). But with the movies premiere looming it would be great to see Cage back Gary. IF you can get some one with balls enough to ask him about it on the red carpet. OR if his handlers would even LET him comment on it.

I’m a box office nerd and I love seeing how much movies make or don’t. In this day and age, opening weekends are the most important numbers you’ll need to show whether or not your film is a success.

The Phantom Menace was going to be a test.

Angry fanboys in many circles were convinced that since they were boycotting it it would do poorly in the theatre.

More level headed fans like myself relished the thought of taking our kids to see it for the first time on the big screen and were rewarded with a great time and the single best post-conversion 3D we’ve ever seen.

But how well did it do?

Well, the weekend estimates are in and it’s being guessed that The Phantom Menace in 3D pulled in $23 million dollars.

Sure, it came in fourth at the box office, but for a rerelease of a movie that everyone and their cousin has seen and was allegedly despised by all, that’s a pretty incredible number. And I don’t see it dropping off much any time soon with all the good press the conversion has been getting. And I’m not sure if anyone else has noticed, but with the softened expectations and people enjoying the film for what it was instead of what it wasn’t, the reviews that have been coming in from sensible critics have been unanimously more good than bad. (Check out this balanced EW piece, for instance.)

You should check out my full review of the 3D here.

I’ll update this post with the actual numbers, but as it stands, $23 million is impressive… Most impressive.

I attended a packed midnight screening of The Phantom Menace last night. The Alpine Garrison of the 501st was out in force, my friends Jeff and Jimmy from The Big Movie Mouth-Off were on hand to officiate a costume contest, and I oversaw a trivia challenge. (The answer to the winning question was “Jaxxon.”)

It was a great event and a great night.

I was surprised to see as many little kids there as I did. Not because I thought little kids wouldn’t want to see it, but because even I left my kids home thinking it would be a waste of money to let them sleep through the movie. Hell, I was pretty confident I was going to fall asleep through it myself.

But it just goes to show that The Phantom Menace is still going strong.

As far as the actual movie is concerned, if you’re not already a fan of The Phantom Menace, there isn’t much about this release that’s going to change your mind. Unless you drop all your preconceptions and angst about what it wasn’t and just go in expecting to enjoy what it was, this release isn’t going to offer anything new for you.

For those of us who are fans and have been since day one, this is a great opportunity to see it on the big screen. I was wary of the 3D, but the conversion on these films was good. There was never a moment where I thought it was too overwhelming or too underwhelming, it seemed appropriate for the film.

Would I still rather just see it in 2D? Yes.

But I’m glad I’ve been able to see it in 3D. It really is like watching the movie for the first time again with a whole new layer added to it. It surprised me how much the shape of the sets and the set design really popped. The biggest winner in this conversion is Gavin Bocquet and his production design. The conversion made the sets and props almost seem tangible. If nothing else, they put on display the workmanship and creativity that went into them in a way that we’d never seen before.

This is certainly worth your time at least once. I’m going back (with the kids) to see it this evening and I couldn’t be more excited. They’ve never seen this film on the big screen and I can’t wait to see their reaction to it. My daughter has been begging for a couple of weeks to watch the Blu-ray of The Phantom Menace and I’ve staved her off, telling her we’d just wait for the big screen and now that the day is here, she can’t contain herself.

I’m doubly excited to see it again with with a refreshed head, not ready to fall asleep. And I’ll probably see it a few more times for good measure. It’s so hard to pass up a Star Wars movie on the big screen.

It is worth noting that it seems that in the 3D conversion process, they did significantly brighten the image of the film so that with the glasses on you’re not missing much of the original color or luminosity at all. That’s always a very frustrating thing when you’re watching a 3D film and I feel like Lucasfilm compensated for it beautifully.

The Phantom Menace 3D hits theatres today. If you like Star Wars, you’ll probably be there to see it. If you’re in the Salt Lake area, you might just see me there, too.

Reboot? Re-imagining? Rip-off? How you feel about the idea of “The Amazing Spider-Man,” this summer’s super hero action-adventure film starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, may depend on your feelings about the Marvel Comics characters and comics the movie is based upon.

A new trailer for the July release will be in theaters Feb. 10. It is already making the rounds online, though, and it does offer the first glimpses of the Lizard, the main villain in the film, some customary Spidey wisecracking, full views of the new movie costume, and some hints that this may be a darker, edgier version than director Sam Raimi offered us.

Big Shiny Robot! got its two biggest Spider-Man fans … Jerk-bot, a self-proclaimed “traditionalist,” and Kill-tacular-tron … to get their views on the spot. While the two may agree about their love for the Web-slinger, their opinions of the trailer couldn’t be more different. In fact, a debate ensued.

Presenting the case against is Jerk-bot, better known as local movie/geek columnist and reviewer Jeff Michael Vice.

OPENING STATEMENT
First off, let me just say that you cannot and must not judge a movie by its trailer. As a longtime fan of the characters and the comics, I am hoping that “The Amazing Spider-Man” will be if not a good movie, then a fun one.

Let me confess, however, as a longtime fan, I am especially harsh when it comes to adaptations, be they animated or live-action. And I am somewhat of a traditionalist. While I do enjoy Brian Michael Bendis’s Ultimate version, I still prefer the Stan Lee/Steve Ditko/John Romita ASM comics … and even the current, Dan Slott/Humberto Ramos ones.

Say what you will about Sam Raimi’s trilogy of films, they showed love and appreciation for the classics. “Spider-Man 2” is about as perfect a printed-four-color-page-to-the-big-screen movie adaptation as there is. Watch it again, after reading those earlier comics, if you don’t believe me. (And skip over “Spider-Man 3” … )

And let me also confess that I am not an Andrew Garfield fan. Thus far, he has conveyed more general cockiness and sheer doucheyness than a likable personality in his performances. Peter Parker? I think not. (Though I will admit that I was wrong about my initial casting misgivings in regards to Chris “Captain America” Evans and Chris “Capt. Kirk” Pine.)

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE TRAILER
I’ll take these, point by point …

IT’S DARK … TOO DARK.
Having read Spider-Man comics for more than two-thirds of my life, I realize that they are filled with tragedy, drama, pathos, bathos, what have you. It’s part of what makes Peter Parker and his wall-crawling, web-slinging alter ego
so relatable. He rises above the challenges in his life, and never gives up.

However, this new trailer not only looks dark … in term of its nearly constant nighttime and indoors settings … it also looks more brooding than Christopher Nolan’s Batman films. Since this was shot in the 3D format, it’s going to give people eye strain if nothing else.

THERE’S NOTHING NEW (OR NU) IN IT.
Sam Raimi and company already did all this before. And better. Don’t believe me?

Peter Parker being bullied by Flash Thompson and standing up to him? Check.

Spidey being physically beaten and unmasked? Check.

Our hero being hounded by the police? Check.

A would-be father figure who turns into a green arch-villain? Check.

A tentative first web-swing into action? Check.

And so on …

AMALGAMATION, INC.
We were promised new, “fresh” interpretations of the characters, but …

Capt. George Stacy (Denis Leary) taking the place of J. Jonah Jameson as Spidey’s harshest critic. That role was also Aunt May Parker. Speaking of whom, where is SHE in the trailer? (The character is being played by Sally Field, who is at least as big a name as Leary.)

Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) taking the place of Norman Osborn and Uncle Ben Parker as that aforementioned father figure. (Uncle Ben is being played by Martin Sheen, who, again, is nowhere to be seen.)

CLONE SAGA ALL OVER AGAIN?
Again, appearances are deceiving, but those black-and-white flashback bits horrify me. Angst-y, I-miss-my-dead-parents bull pucky is all the rage in films directed at teen/tween audiences, but unfortunately, it also brings to mind criticisms of George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels, which were explored in a lengthy stand-up comedy routine by Patton Oswalt.

Plus, while the dead parents angle was done in Bendis’s Ultimate title, it was first brought up during the dreaded Clone Saga in various Spidey titles. We longtime fans are still recovering from that awfulness.

WOKKA-WOKKA.
Tobey Maguire may have failed to convince as the wisecracking Peter, but at least his attempts at humor were funnier than the stupid taxi bit in the trailer. If that’s the best “funny” moment in the movie, we’re in trouble, folks.

IN CONCLUSION
All along, I have had the feeling Sony Pictures rushed this film into production simply to hold onto the characters and property, and that we might get a bad or at least mediocre movie. This trailer has done absolutely nothing to allay those fears for me.

That being said, I will be among the first … if not the first … to eat my words. I have done it before (again, see the Star Trek and Captain America movies for evidence of that).

However, I have two words for you if you’re being a Pollyanna about this trailer: “Green Lantern.” I was right all along about THAT one, wasn’t I?

P.S. If this is as bad as I now fear, I will welcome the inevitable cinematic rebooting as “Ultimate Spider-Man” that we’ll get. Hopefully with Miles Morales under the mask. Which is what they should be doing in the first place.

And now for the counterpoint, provided by Kill-tacular-tron.

OPENING STATEMENT
I would also like to remind everyone of what Jeff said in his opening statement, judging a movie based off of a trailer is bad form. I am going to try and share my hopes for the film, and what things excite me about the trailer. I will do my best to counterpoint Jeff, but really it is going to be difficult to make any solid arguments based off a trailer.

Spider-Man is my all-time favorite superhero. I probably have a lot more invested in these movies than John Q. Public. “Spider-Man 2” is still one of my favorite films, and probably the all-time-best superhero movie. At least, in my humble opinion. I grew up on Spider-Man: The Animated Series. The early 2000s is when I first ventured into the comic’s world with (Joe) Straczynski’s Amazing Spider-Man run. I probably became a fanatic while reading the Ultimate Spider-Man series.

My love for the character is what I bring to this argument. Although I’m a cinephile, I am by no means a professional movie critic. I will be approaching my side of this argument from a Spider-Man fanatic’s point of view.

REGARDING THE TONE
Last week I received my Comic-Con preregistration packet. The cover story for the included magazine was “The Amazing Spider-Man.” It contained interviews with (director Marc) Webb and (actress Emma) Stone. I was particularly interested in hearing what Webb was hoping to achieve with his rendition of Peter Parker. In the interview he explains that he wants to avoid the same world that Sam Raimi created. Webb felt that, since Raimi did such an amazing job, there was no reason to try and break new ground with the Golden Age Peter Parker.

This is where the seemingly hybrid version of the character comes into play. There are a lot of things I can pick up on from the Ultimate Universe. For instance, Gwen Stacy definitely seems to know Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Mary Jane is privy to this same information in the Ultimate Universe. It has made for some excellent stories. Peter isn’t carrying this burden by himself and often needs a helping hand. Or occasionally a pep talk.

Another similarity to the Ultimate Universe, a great deal of Peter’s life revolves around Oscorp. Norman creates the spider that gives Peter his super powers. He also employees characters that turn into villains, Otto Octavius being one of them. I don’t think Curt Connors working at Oscrop is a bad thing. In fact, I think it tidies up the premise a bit. This brings me to the next point.

THERE ARE NO NEW IDEAS. THERE ARE ONLY NEW WAYS OF MAKING THEM FELT
To say that this Spider-Man movie is treading on similar ground as Sam Raimi’s is kind of a no-brainer. Unfortunately, Sony decided to do another origin story. I, like most fans, would have rather seen another version of Spider-Man without repeating the introduction. That being said, I think with any movie involving Spider-Man you are going to see:

Peter being unmasked at some point.

The police hunting him. Being the “public menace” is a pretty large theme for the character.

His first web-slinging excursion. This is an origin story, full of many firsts.

I see the point Jeff is trying to make, although it’s hard for either of us to make a definitive stand without seeing the film.

SO FRESH AND SO CLEAN
A lot of the ideas shown in this trailer feel very fresh to me. Although Captain Stacy is taking on a similar role as Jameson, he is now taking on the more logical position for his character. Would a police captain be happy that a masked vigilante is running around town making him look bad and possibly putting a lot of lives in danger? I wouldn’t think so. This also creates a more interesting dynamic between Gwen and Peter (knowing he’s Spider-Man) if her Dad hates him.

I would much rather Webb stay true to the characters he is creating on film, rather than the continuity from the comics. How many movies have been ruined by the addition of one-dimensional characters to appease the fan boys. “X-Men 3,” anyone? Hell, even “Spider-Man 3” suffered from that very same problem. Remember Venom?

SMART-ASS
Honestly, any wisecracking from Spider-Man is going to make me happy. There was a serious lack of it in Raimi’s trilogy. I’ve always imagined Peter’s delivery as very dry. Only the Web-slinger finds himself amusing. But, I do agree with Jeff. I hope what we see in the trailer isn’t the “best-of” stuff.

IN CONCLUSION
Being a fan of Spider-Man, I am super-stoked to see this film. I had my reservations earlier on when I first saw the costume. Even the first trailer left me wondering what to expect. It’s probably not the best approach, but I now have high hopes. The darker tone is kind of exciting for me. It almost hints at the overall story involving the Stacys, and the tragedy that falls on their family because of Spider-Man.

I, like Jeff, will be the first to admit it if this movie turns out to be a big stinker. I guess the one thing we can agree on: We both hope this movie turns out better than “Spider-Man 3.”

The Amazing Spider-Man Facebook page unveiled the newest trailer for the Marc Webb directed film in the wee hours of the morning this morning! You can check it out below!

I’ll be honest, I’ve been pretty on board with this reboot from the beginning. I like the cast, I like the director, and now after seeing this latest trailer I like the direction it looks like they are taking it. Spider-Man being a smart-ass? Check. Spider-Man kicking ass? Check. Drama? Check. Humor? Check. Beautiful Gwen Stacy? Check.

I know a lot of you out there have pretty strong feelings about this reboot, thinking it’s too early, or you haven’t like what you’ve seen of Webb’s Spidey thus far, but after seeing this trailer this robot really thinks he’s got something great going here. As always, sound off with your comments and opinions in the comments section below!

The Amazing Spider-Man hits theaters on July 3rd, is directed by Marc Webb, and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, and Denis Leary.